Jump to content

[Discussion] Balance, Bias, Matchmaking and Battle Ratings


Scarper
 Share

2 minutes ago, cashmeowsidehbd said:

sometimes i turn the volume down and make my own machine gun sounds. PEW-PEW-PEW!

another fun one is fly over the enemies airfield and try to catch AA rounds.

I have one better,... i only kill people at ennemy airfield --> also in order to make those players to play the game instead of hidding behind the airfield.

 

(It works pretty well in Jet Era ^^")

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Q&A was, well I have nothing good to say about it, they forget to account for the fact that the USSR is one of the most played nations ingame and that most players are rather bad at using SPAA to their actual capabilities.

So I request Gaijin to have a decently sized pool of people from the community that can be used as a basis for actually measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of vehicles without the huge differences in skill level and state of vehicle, as they are now using to balance the game with different amounts of players playing each nation and of different skill levels.

I think that having a set pool of good players to use to see where each vehicle should be in the BR bracket, would improve the overall balance of the game and have a consistent effectiveness (hopefully) across the whole BR range. Germany is a good example of this, remember when the Pz.IVG? it used to be 4.3 and now it has fallen to 3.7, while the Chi-Nu II has stayed put, difference being the playerbase of the nations. Granted it could be other factors but I think limiting the human factor to known baseline will improve the overall balance.

In the Q&A it was stated that the 2S6 was the least effective of current top SPAA, and I as someone who plays SPAA quite often at higher tiers, highly disagree. It has comparable range to the other systems, same goes for overall performance, it is actually better than the EuroTruck since it does not need to reload after 2 shots which requires the turret to be in a set location, so yes while the VT-1 missile is one of the best, you cannot quickly respond to more than 2 aircraft without the interruption of the reload every 2 shots, the ADATS is a better comparison but that can also do anti tank duty so the stats there might be a bit murkier unless tested specifically for one thing.

If anyone here can actually words this better than me, please do, because I am bad with saying things.
 

Edit:
The reason I specify good players is because for a vehicle to do good you have to actually know it decently well, and people who are below average I think should be ignored if the balancing is done via player statistics, since the vehicle is performing below sub-optimal conditions

Edited by ErrantAlgae
added a bit of explanation
  • Haha 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prefeer if they'd completely leave out the player skill in the decision making of balancing. It has been abused in the past with a CL-13 Sabre (don't remember which one anymore). I'd be more for a performance balance way of thinking as the statistics seem to not take into account how those vehicles are played.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PenguinRed said:

I would prefeer if they'd completely leave out the player skill in the decision making of balancing. It has been abused in the past with a CL-13 Sabre (don't remember which one anymore). I'd be more for a performance balance way of thinking as the statistics seem to not take into account how those vehicles are played.

yeah but they won't do that cause that would require more time on their part and they want to be removed from the process it seems and it was the Italian CL-13. Blind statistics cause bad results. Also RIP the WT website rn seems to be dead

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 28/02/2023 at 09:11, Takasaki_Yu said:

The day would come immediately when a competitor emerges XD

Yes, I hoped for that a long time as well. However, considering how big and established War Thunder is now, and how much of a head start on content it's had, I think a real competitor emerging as long as War Thunder is still around is, sadly, increasingly unlikely.

 

On 28/02/2023 at 01:28, CoffeeBean100 said:

That's the problem. What should they do then? Bearing in mind the only way they keep it alive IS the "hype elements" what could the focus be and which type of player?

 

It would be interesting to break down these options.

 

Point being "improve" is an empty promise.

On 01/03/2023 at 07:37, CoffeeBean100 said:

A lot of "improve" but no actual agreed improvements. Is no one else nothing the elephant in the room?

 

I didn't want to get into the details of supposed improvements here because I think there are already plenty of threads where people are discussing these, and it would have significantly increased the length and scope of an already very long thread that makes a lot of big claims. I thought it would be much harder to convince people that I was right about this since I got so much backlash the last couple times I made threads like this one.

 

In my opinion, the way to keep the game alive is to give people more and more reasons to play and to spend other than just to grind the latest thingy and buy the newest premium.  War Thunder already has an incredibly vast collection of vehicles of all types from all eras. Everything is in place for the ultimate historical vehicle combat game. What's really missing, in my opinion, is gameplay, and also meaningful tasks to accomplish outside of grinding the tech tree or the battlepass. War Thunder has events but even the events are just still more tedious grindfests to get some vehicle. Maybe it doesn't feel this way for newer players, but the core gameplay is incredibly uninspired, boring, and stagnant. With plenty of frustrating aspects mixed in.  As a predominately Air RB player, my primary and most desired suggestion for improvement of the game is for the full and unrestricted implementation of Air RB enduring confrontation.

 

 

On 01/03/2023 at 04:37, Thorien_Kell said:
Spoiler

Oh look, another guy with 11K battles played will now explain to us how this game is crap. 
If the game was not fun, no amount of new toys would be able to keep the players engaged. 
I would play WT even if zero new vehicles were added.

 

itsucsks.png

 

Well, you have to play the game and observe changes to know what's wrong with it, right? If I had 50 battles I would not have the experience or understanding required to identify problems with the game. A brand new player is not going to realize all of the complicated things that are wrong with the game, he's still just trying to learn mechanics and survive in matches. He also doesn't have any of the investment, so flaws in the game aren't as frustrating as to someone who has invested so many hours.

 

On 01/03/2023 at 08:01, jericho793 said:

As far as running out of vehicles, I feel that once what exists is exhausted, then it will be time to add future vehicles that don't exist.  Battle Walkers, Hover tanks, Air vehicles with vectored thrust using unconventional thrust generation (i.e. Non combustion engines), Basically something that can operate like a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft simultaneously.  Very maneuverable, very fast, can start and stop on a dime in the air.  Finally, I suppose the battlefield would have to move to Space.  That's where I see the future of War Thunder, if it lives that long.

On 28/02/2023 at 18:38, Vasilly_Willy said:

Yes but the new content has to be sufficiently exciting and I don't think a Sopwith Camel or a Mark 1 (male) is going to generate anywhere near the Hype (and by extension, revenue) an F-22, J-20, AbramsX or T14 Armata would. Which severely limits its chances of being added in a future where all common and modern tanks/heli's/aircraft/ships have been added. Honestly the only things I think would generate the same kind of revenue that modern vehicles or super iconic WWII/Cold War vehicles will generate, is paper protoype vehicles like E75 or Obj 268 V5 etc.

On 28/02/2023 at 18:30, richthofen122 said:

Even with the return of older vehicles, there is more than enough content. The wishlist thread for example is expanding on an almost daily basis with vehicles I have never heard of before. And there is also the possibility of WW1 content, especially for aviation. The sad truth is, as long as man goes to war, War Thunder will have new content to add.

 

I think that adding sci-fi and/or fantasy vehicles to the game would thoroughly break the thin veneer of the realism that the game advertises itself as having. Flying saucers and fake tanks being made into big selling points might risk pushing away as many players as it attracts. Even still, I just can't imagine these made up things being as interesting and income-generating as real stuff lots of common people know and care about. And, as I stated in the original post, older vehicles that have been skipped past have been skipped past for a reason. There are niche groups of people who really care about them but adding them can't take the place of adding something like the F-15.

Edited by ProgramTheta
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just playing this morning and my BR 2.7 tank is being ranked up against BR4 vehicles !! Looking at the tier map for Russia and I see T34's and KV-1's in my tier? what has happened? Something has gone massively wrong with the ranking in this game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Gez_Moor said:

Just playing this morning and my BR 2.7 tank is being ranked up against BR4 vehicles !! Looking at the tier map for Russia and I see T34's and KV-1's in my tier? what has happened? Something has gone massively wrong with the ranking in this game!

1st thing: arcade mode or RB mode?

 

2nd thing: do you k ow how BR works with matchamking?

 

3rd thing before assuming that the game is broken,... make multiple times test.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Gez_Moor said:

Just playing this morning and my BR 2.7 tank is being ranked up against BR4 vehicles !! Looking at the tier map for Russia and I see T34's and KV-1's in my tier? what has happened? Something has gone massively wrong with the ranking in this game!

 

Didn't happen unless you can provide a replay.

Edited by Josephs_Piano
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

1st thing: arcade mode or RB mode?

Doesn't even matter, 1st KV-1 (KV-1 (L-11) is BR 3.7 in both AB and RB. T-34 (1940) is 3.3, 1941 is 3.7 - both in AB and RB. No idea what the OP is complaining about.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everybody. Sorry for my poor English, it is not my first language.

I want to ask for help on behalf of all War Thunder players. I'm talking about vehicles that are at the end of the research tree, and more specifically, the cost of module research. You can see for yourself - Machbet 8.3 AA with a module cost of 32000. This is absolutely insane. On Russian forum many times we asked to stop this and set a normal cost for modules for vehicles with an 8.0-10.0 rating. But we are faced with complete neglect on the part of the developers. That's the reason why I'm asking for help here, maybe they can't ignore you. Western players are important to developers and you can change this.

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these BRs shown from an Arcade Air battle perspective?  Becasue the SPS-K is 10.0, and the Milan is 9.7, in ARB.  There is still validity to your post, but in Realistic air battles, there is less dominance from some of the aircraft you listed over others you listed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, jericho793 said:

Are these BRs shown from an Arcade Air battle perspective?  Becasue the SPS-K is 10.0, and the Milan is 9.7, in ARB.  There is still validity to your post, but in Realistic air battles, there is less dominance from some of the aircraft you listed over others you listed. 

 

 

In such a detailed post it would be nice if it was stated.

Edited by x1BRAVO9x
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jericho793 said:

Ces BR sont-ils présentés dans une perspective de combat Arcade Air ? Parce que le SPS-K est de 10,0 et le Milan est de 9,7, en ARB. Votre message est toujours valable, mais dans les batailles aériennes réalistes, il y a moins de domination de certains des avions que vous avez listés sur d'autres que vous avez listés. 

 

Indeed, the BRs indicated are those in arcade, since I do not have these migs, I do not have them in pre-selection, and in the tree, they are predefined in arcade. But it still gives a good idea of the thing, however, I tend to encounter the Mig21S and the J35 a lot, as well as the SU25 and Yak38 when I am in RB with my Mystère IVs or SMB2s.. 

 

Here we can see the variations of BR.

 

image.png.f17e979e88beeabd80634caf27659a image.png.34a17c1cc14e9eff8e1639c6d29e78 image.png.5bae79637e8aaa537f52f0b00b0742 image.png.5b87e6b8f96e083fcf19733a436d2c image.png.440ff25dbe6490463ee0d0f991979f

 

 

Edited by LaTerreurDuCiel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jets balancing is real bad and unplayable.

 

They keep working on it to make it better but it is still messed up.

 

Example Play a German Me-262 and always be up tiered against jets from the lat 50's early 60's

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would welcome the addition of futuristic teleporting Tanks, IFVs and SPAAs which could teleport behind the lines, hide, and strafe planes that are landing to refuel and repair, so that we ground battlers can make the air battles game as miserable for them as the ceaseless hordes of airplanes and helicopters do for our beloved ground battles.

Edited by PzII_is_a_Crutch
  • Confused 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VT_88 said:

Jets balancing is real bad and unplayable.

 

They keep working on it to make it better but it is still messed up.

 

Example Play a German Me-262 and always be up tiered against jets from the lat 50's early 60's

 

 

I would stop short of saying jets are unplayable but there are definitely BRs if you hit the Battle Button you at a disadvantage right out of the gate.

 

On the other hand there are several BRs that are very favorable to play.

 

But the central point I definitely agree, jet BRs are due a much needed overhaul.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be bad, because then in the real game with average players, it would do way too well or way too badly, leading to blowout stomp games that aren't fun.

 

For example, The M3 Lee is lower BR for sure than it would be if only players with multi turrets set up and who know how to range each one separately etc. played it. But if you made it 3.0 or something as a result, then put that in the game, all the newer players who have no idea how to use multi turrets would lose too much with it. So then America would go down to too low of a win rate. Do that for all vehicles, and you'll get nations with 80% win rates, other nations with 30% win rates, and nobody is having fun, bad game.

 

To get the optimal, 50% win rates for both teams that are the most fun for everyone, you can only balance based on the representative sample of actual players who will be playing in the actual game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Moderator

some latest balance / br topics merged into this one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, where do I even begin with the British aviation tech tree....
Honestly the nonsense in this tree just feels like Gaijin has some vendetta against the Brits, but in reality it is probably a factor of major power creep. Also, all opinions are based on Realistic battles, not arcade or sim: 

  • The Hunters -
    • The Hunter F.1 at 9.0. Seems a bit high for a pure gun fighter that isn't that fast, doesn't have that powerful an engine, can't turn well due to high compression and obviously doesn't have flares. There are just too many negatives for this aircraft, and while it do well in a full down tier, it is quickly outmatched at it's own battle rating. It is still somewhat usable however, unlike the Hunter F.6.
    • Ohhh boy, the F.6.... 10.0 for a subsonic hunter chassis. What is the difference between the F.1 and the F.6 to make a whole 1 br gap? The addition of up to 4 SRAAMs. Whilst the SRAAMs are not too bad, their limited range makes them difficult to use, but they are an excellent addition. The reason the F.6 is just unusable at 10.0 is that it cannot manouver, it cannot flare and it gets the fun of facing all aspect missiles in every game. I have played the F.6 recently, and it is actually around the same speed as the SU-25. The SU-25, at 9.7 has a variety of bomb/rocket options and 2 all aspect missiles, is quicker than the Hunter F.6, turns better than the Hunter and has an abundance of flares.... make it make sense! 
  • The Jaguars -
    • Ohh boy the Jaguars... whilst not awful like the Hunters, they do suffer a similar fate. The GR.1 at 9.7 is not too bad, it is just about supersonic, and the Aim-9Gs are pretty good missiles. I feel like the airframe just bleeds far too much speed in a turn, as you realistically have 1 good turn before you find yourself at 400km/h and a sitting duck for any enemy paying attention. But again the major issue for the GR.1 is it's lack of flares.
    • The GR.1A on the other hand really starts to suffer a pretty poor fate at 10.3. Similarly to the Hunter F.6, the GR1.A is pretty slow compared to everything else, frequently finding itself at the back of the pack with the A-10s and SU-25s. At least it has flares, but it seems like 10.3 is just way too high for the poor thing.

I can't talk for the rest of the tree as my most recent experience has been at the top end, where it is incredibly outclassed.

 

Any other thoughts on the British tech tree as a whole? I have played most of the ground, naval and air tree at this point and it just feels like it is over br'd at almost every turn, with other nations at the same br all having much stronger vehicles for seemingly no reason?

  • Upvote 3
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Acog_Lunge said:

Oh boy, where do I even begin with the British aviation tech tree....
Honestly the nonsense in this tree just feels like Gaijin has some vendetta against the Brits, but in reality it is probably a factor of major power creep. Also, all opinions are based on Realistic battles, not arcade or sim: 

  • The Hunters -
    • The Hunter F.1 at 9.0. Seems a bit high for a pure gun fighter that isn't that fast, doesn't have that powerful an engine, can't turn well due to high compression and obviously doesn't have flares. There are just too many negatives for this aircraft, and while it do well in a full down tier, it is quickly outmatched at it's own battle rating. It is still somewhat usable however, unlike the Hunter F.6.
    • Ohhh boy, the F.6.... 10.0 for a subsonic hunter chassis. What is the difference between the F.1 and the F.6 to make a whole 1 br gap? The addition of up to 4 SRAAMs. Whilst the SRAAMs are not too bad, their limited range makes them difficult to use, but they are an excellent addition. The reason the F.6 is just unusable at 10.0 is that it cannot manouver, it cannot flare and it gets the fun of facing all aspect missiles in every game. I have played the F.6 recently, and it is actually around the same speed as the SU-25. The SU-25, at 9.7 has a variety of bomb/rocket options and 2 all aspect missiles, is quicker than the Hunter F.6, turns better than the Hunter and has an abundance of flares.... make it make sense! 
  • The Jaguars -
    • Ohh boy the Jaguars... whilst not awful like the Hunters, they do suffer a similar fate. The GR.1 at 9.7 is not too bad, it is just about supersonic, and the Aim-9Gs are pretty good missiles. I feel like the airframe just bleeds far too much speed in a turn, as you realistically have 1 good turn before you find yourself at 400km/h and a sitting duck for any enemy paying attention. But again the major issue for the GR.1 is it's lack of flares.
    • The GR.1A on the other hand really starts to suffer a pretty poor fate at 10.3. Similarly to the Hunter F.6, the GR1.A is pretty slow compared to everything else, frequently finding itself at the back of the pack with the A-10s and SU-25s. At least it has flares, but it seems like 10.3 is just way too high for the poor thing.

I can't talk for the rest of the tree as my most recent experience has been at the top end, where it is incredibly outclassed.

 

Any other thoughts on the British tech tree as a whole? I have played most of the ground, naval and air tree at this point and it just feels like it is over br'd at almost every turn, with other nations at the same br all having much stronger vehicles for seemingly no reason?

 

 

I think the GR1 is probably one of the most underrated aircraft at 9.7.

 

I'm not saying it is the best, just underrated.

 

The GR1.A while not as good at 10.3 as the GR1 is at 9.7 is still serviceable.

 

I agree though, 10.3 is one level too high. It really should be 10.0.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

800px-GarageImage_F-4EJ_ADTW.jpg

 

Can the f-4ej adtw receive improvements to stop being the worst plane of 11.0? maybe better missiles and radar or lower it to 10.7 (like Tornado IDS)?

  • Haha 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't gone through the topic, so my apologies if that has already been covered.

 

The F-4C at 10.3 in AB. Thats a joke and I assume done just out of pure hatred to any player playing US tree, right?

And having the F-4E / J / S all siting at 11.0 somehow also doesn't feel right.

Btw. The F-4C still lacks the AIM-9P-3 as mentioned here:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...